Tutor Blog Post


31 Mar 2019 9 Views Sarah

Part 1

Question 1: Study Purpose/Question

(a)  Did the study have a clearly stated purpose/research question?                      

Yes/ No

(b)   Explain your response below:

The research question of the paper pertains to study parent’s viewpoint of providing vaccination to their children in Singapore (Kurup, He, Wang, Wang and Shorey, 2017). Its essential aim was to analyze whether the parents view of providing vaccination to their children as a common way of providing healthcare or it is a social responsibility towards the community they are living (Kurup et al., 2017). Giving vaccination is one of the crucial and globally accepted elements of children’s healthcare and the management of the same becomes significant (Kurup et al., 2017). In previous papers it was observed that parent’s have trust issues and concerns when it comes to providing their children with vaccinations. This is the first such study that is being conducted in Singapore. Overall, the study put forth’s its efforts to study the concerns and perception of the parent’s with regard to their children’s vaccination need (Kurup et al., 2017).


Question 2: Relevance to nursing/midwifery practice

(a)  Explain how this question was relevant to nursing/midwifery practice?

This study puts emphasis on the need to bring attention of doctors and other medical practitioners as well as politicians on giving due consideration to the issues raised by the parents about vaccination (Kurup et al., 2017). It becomes crucial for removing any hindrance in implementation of children’s healthcare programs by building an effective communication system with the parents. It is clear that the study is important as it has never been conducted I Singapore. The study can be used in nursing practice to better educate parents who are concerned about their child’s well being (Lindlof and Taylor, 2017). It can also help save time as parents can take a swift decision and will not wait for vaccination and also help them get better access the next time.  The paper will also guide the nurses to provide information to the parents regarding vaccination with evidentiary support and better their experience and that of the children (Kurup et al., 2017). The paper collects and displays the details on the lack of information providing to the parents about their children’s healthcare and how healthcare institution lack in building trust and communicate about vaccination practice (Bryman, 2017). It emphasizes on the need for nurses and midwives to communicate effectively and provide the parents with important information and also tell about the side effects and how to manage the same. Timely intervention links with the decrease of the parent’s anxiety and to integrate with their work schedules (Lindlof and Taylor, 2017).  Thus, this becomes essential for countries like Hong Kong, China and Singapore that have made vaccination mandatory to provide the next generation with basic healthcare (Kurup et al., 2017).


Question 3: Ethics

(a)  What were the possible risks of participating in the study?

One of the risks associated with the study revolves around the participant’s decision to give their information and medical data or not. It was also important to keep all the information given by the participants confidential (Lindlof and Taylor, 2017).

(b)  Were these risks clearly identified by the authors?


(c)   If risks were identified by the authors, how did they propose to minimise risk?

The researchers associated with the study understood the need of keeping information of the participant confidential and thus, took written as well as verbal consent of the participants after recruiting them (Kurup et al., 2017). The consent was necessary to ascertain that the participants voluntarily gave the data and the same was kept confidential. In addition, the participants could withdraw their consent anytime for whatever reason (Kurup et al., 2017).

(d)  Did the authors state that they had approval from an ethics committee to undertake the study?    

Yes/ No

(e)  How did the authors obtain informed consent from participants?

The consent which was taken in written form by communicating to them directly and focusing that they voluntarily participated and also to maintain that the data should be kept confidential. This was assured to the participants through written and verbal communication (Kurup et al., 2017).   

(f)   Did you identify and potential risks associated with the study that were not identified by the authors and if so, what were they?

One of the risks identified by me is the legal risk which has not been identified by the authors of the study (Bryman, 2017). The possibility of the subject of the research be in violation of certain legal principles has not been accessed which can incur criminal or civil liability, the same should have been considered by the authors (Berger, R., 2015).


 Question 4: Study Methodology

(a)  What the chosen methodology for this study?

The methodology pertains in constructing a qualitative design through not fully structured face to-face or telephonic meetings (Kurup et al., 2017).

(b)  Was this choice suitable for the given research problem/question?

Yes/ No

(c)   Explain your response to (b):

I agree with the authors’ choice of methodology chosen for the paper as the aim is to conduct a qualitative evocative research is to compile the experience of a certain number of people (Kurup et al., 2017). Similarly this study is uncovering the view of parents with regard to their children vaccination need.  It will enhance future medical services and increase the reliability on health care industry when it comes to children vaccination need (Kurup et al., 2017). The aim is thus to compile a list of data which provides health care practitioners with insights. The semi-structured information is optimal for dividing the information into two parts first, to analyze the fundamental perceptions of the participants and the second, to check other possibilities and to get answers on that basis (Bryman, 2017).


Question 5: Data Collection/Rigour

(a)  Describe how the data was collected for this study (interview, observation, etc).

An initial interview conducted for examining the methodology which was not included in the final information analysis (Kurup et al., 2017). Firstly, a total of 44 parents were contacted and out of those 16 parents declined to participate and six of the 44 did not meet the criteria of selection. 22 parents gave consent, 1 was taken for the initial interview and 2 withdrew their consent due to busy schedule. The interviews were conducted and data was duly taken (Kurup et al., 2017). After the 16th interview the data was found saturated.  Three more interviews were conducted to check the data and confirm it. Therefore, a total of 19 interviews were conducted and the input was taken, the interviews lasted from 10 to 30 minutes (Kurup et al., 2017).

(b)  Did the researchers provide the participants with the opportunity to check the collected data or research findings?

Yes/ No

(c)   Did the researchers continue recruiting people to the study until data saturation was reached?

Yes/ No

(d)  Did the study use multiple data collection methods (eg collect data from more than one source)?                                     

Yes/ No

(e)  Explain how the points in (b), (c) and (d) contribute to the trustworthiness of the overall research findings.

The participants were shown the data collected to check and verify them so that no significant data is missed or lost and therefore, increasing the reliability of the research works (Lindlof and Taylor, 2017).

This research undertook the following methods which showcases the reliability of the finding:

ü  Analytical writing

ü  Double checking the transcripts (Kurup et al., 2017)

ü  Re-checking conducted by contemporary member

ü  Exact words described by the participants are used

ü  researcher triangulation  (Lindlof and Taylor, 2017)

ü  Audit to check on the recordings of the interview, notes and other recorded documents (Bryman, 2017)

ü  Critiquing on the research theme and sub-theme were consequent.

ü  Usage of the verbatim quotes for sustaining the findings

ü  Describing the socio-demographic findings (Kurup et al., 2017)

                  Further, the aspect of data saturation as a criteria to derive evidentiary on the quality of the Pre-mentioned qualitative research thus, increasing its reliability (Kurup et al., 2017).


Question 6: Participants

(a)  How many participants were included in the study?

A total number 44 participants were contacted but final 19 participants were selected whose data was collected (Kurup et al., 2017). The participants were within the age range of 26 to 47 years and were married. Out of the 19, 10 were fathers and their ethnicity ranged from Malay (4), Chinese (11), 1 was Jewish and 4 were Indians all were living in Singapore (Kurup et al., 2017). Out of the 19 only 12 were parents to a single child and 15 participants had little information about vaccination before 1 and 18 months and 4 participants had no information about vaccination (Kurup et al., 2017). The participants disclosed that their child has received between 1 to 9 vaccinations since their birth. Those 4 parents could not remember the number. Also, monthly income was recorded to be between $2,000 and $10,000 and a total of 14 participants reported an income of $3,000 (Kurup et al., 2017).

(b)  What were the inclusion and exclusion criteria?

The standards for including participants were:

ü  The parent who was the primary provided for the child

ü  Parent who had a healthy child of the age bracket between 0 and 18 and was been given vaccination.

ü  Parent who understood and write English (Kurup et al., 2017).

                       The standards for excluding the participants were:

ü  Participants who had cognitive problems were excluded

ü  Parents with physical disability (Kurup et al., 2017).

(c)   Explain how the participants were recruited.

The clinics in Singapore where young children came for vaccination were contacted and the participants were recruited from there itself (Kurup et al., 2017). The races in Singaporean society are divided into 4 kinds and they are; Chinese who constitute of about 74.3% of the total, 13.4% are Malaysian, Indian are 9.1% and the rest 3.2% are of other races as of June 2016 (Kurup et al., 2017).

(d)  Describe the setting in which the study took place (hospital, community, etc)?

The participants were selected from the clinics in Singapore where they went to get their child vaccinated and the study of the interview were conducted through telephones or through face to face discussion at a place and time convenient with the participants (Kurup et al., 2017).


Question 7: Research Findings (outcomes)

(a)  What were the main findings of this study? (provide a dot point summary).

Ø  Aspects promoting vaccination uptake

ü  Reliance in healthcare

ü  Accessibility

ü  Mandatory nature (Kurup et al., 2017)

ü  Protection of children and the community

ü  Fear of consequence of not giving the vaccination (Kurup et al., 2017)

Ø  Aspects that delay taking of vaccination

ü  Conflict with schedule

ü  Negative experience about the safety and risk

ü  Low disease severity

ü  Little convenience to take other alternative vaccinations (Kurup et al., 2017)

Ø  Aspects which showcase those parents being supportive and when the vaccination occurs.

ü  Handling physical pain and other negative results.

ü  Assuring that the child is ready to take the vaccination

ü  Managing the child and monitoring the progression (Kurup et al., 2017)

Ø  The requirement  of parents to demand in service, communication and information about the vaccination with the healthcare professionals

ü  Maintenance of the selection using the reminder and restricting waiting time

ü   Creating and developing communication between the parents and healthcare professionals (Kurup et al., 2017)